Okay I couldn't help but post one more (last one until Monday I promise). Considering that yesterday marked the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, it's only fitting that we are reminded how Barack Obama responded when he was just a "little known" senator from Illinois. Mr. Shapiro's comments at the end of his article particularly nail it on the head when he says the main problem is that Obama does not understand the true nature of evil.
Personally, I still can't understand why anyone would want this man watering their lawn, nonetheless serving as commander in chief. I'm confident however, that even if it's not until election day with the ballot right in front of them, most Americans will finally come to their senses:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The July 20 issue of the New Yorker magazine got a lot of attention for its cover, which carried a "satirical" cartoon depicting Michelle and Barack Obama that Obama supporters found tasteless and offensive. Buried inside that issue's feature story, however, was a reaction by Obama to 9/11 that all voters should find even more tasteless and offensive.
The article reprised a piece published in Chicago's Hyde Park Herald on Sept.19, 2001, and written by a then-unknown and otherwise undistinguished state senator from Illinois. The senator, a former community organizer, wrote that after tightening security at our airports and repairing our intelligence networks, we "must also engage . . . in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness."
According to Barack Obama, the madness that drove terrorists to turn passenger jets into manned cruise missiles aimed at our centers of finance, government and military power "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
As if the answer to the attacks should have been food stamps for al-Qaida.
Sen. Obama advised caution and warned of overreacting. "We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad," he wrote. "We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent."
We should also be just as concerned, he felt, with American anger and bigotry as we were about al-Qaida.
In an opinion piece in Commentary magazine, writer Abe Greenwald commented on Obama's belief that the 9/11 attacks were rooted in poverty and despair. "Strange," he called it, "considering our attackers were wealthy and educated, connected and ecstatic."
As Greenwald put it,Obama "could have asked (terrorist and colleague) Bill Ayers,'Bill, did your 'failure of empathy' stem from your impoverished upbringing as the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison?" Did poverty and despair also cause the Weather Underground member and host of Obama's first fundraiser to bomb government buildings?
Fact is, the roster of terrorists and their handlers reads like a list of of Ivy Leaguers:
Osama bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire, studied engineering. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, architect of 9/11 and other major attacks, has a degree in mechanical engineering. Mohammed Atta, who flew a jet into the World Trade Center, is the son of a lawyer and earned a master's degree in urban planning at Hamburg University. Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye surgeon. Seven doctors were involved in the London-Glasgow bomb plots.
You get the idea, even if Barack Obama doesn't.
In a speech before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush pointed out the real reasons Islamofascists hate us: "They hate what they see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
Bush aptly called the 9/11 terrorists and their ilk "the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century."
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism," he said.
Knowing the nature of your enemy is the key to victory. On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, we should all thank President Bush for keeping America safe. Along the way, he brought freedom and democracy to the Middle East, draining the terrorist swamp.
Bush gets it. So does John McCain. This is one thing we shouldn't want to change.
********************************"Obama's scariest characteristic is his puerile belief that everything can be solved by talking with dictators. He doesn't seem to understand the simple truth that America's enemies see negotiation as a sign of weakness. Obama has no problem chatting with the world's bloodiest butchers or sitting in racist churches because he "understands" everyone. Back in November, I wrote that Obama was running as "The Man Who Understands." "I know, I have seen the desperation and disorder of the powerless," he writes in "Dreams From My Father." That understanding leads him to excuse Islamic terrorism as a function of poverty; it leads him to compare black teens on the South Side of Chicago to jihadis in Indonesia. It leads him to excuse scumbag preachers and kowtow to sadistic tyrants. There's clearly one thing Barack Obama doesn't understand: the nature of evil. That's why he continues to coddle evil men in both his personal life and his politics." ~~ Ben Shapiro
Friday, September 12, 2008
Most Ridiculous Yet
Ah, yes. Another e-mail from a gay man who not only lets his sexual orientation cast his vote for him, but chooses to do so on some of the most far-fetched nonsense I have heard to date. The message started out well, that he loves America and has traditionally voted republican, and stating that the war in Iraq was justified if it meant that we got rid of the next Hitler (even Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, said that behind Hitler, Saddam Hussein was the second most evil head of state in world history).But just as I began to vigorusly nod my head in agreement, this person's argument took a turn for the bizarre. He states that John McCain WILL not might) die before his term is over, yet offers no copy of his medical credentials, nonetheless proof that he has even personally examined Senator McCain.He then proceeds to state that Sarah Palin will become president, and that she "hates the gays even more." I'm assuming that he means more than John McCain, which is indeed odd since he offers no evidence that McCain is anti-gay. This claim is all the more baffling considering the fact that as a Senator, McCain first to come to the defense of an openly gay former Tempe, Arizona mayor when the religious right started going on the attack.Now here's where things get really strange. My new internet penpal then claims that if Palin were to become president, she will send all the gays to "concentration camps" and make a law against same sex couples "holding hands in public." He also warns that "having gay sex will be illegal," despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional not even five years ago. Sarah Palin is just as welcome to have whatever opinion about gays she pleases, as is any other American. However, I have yet to see one iota of proof that she would allow her personal opinions on this issue to affect her job (never mind that there is also no evidence that McCain has serious health problems that would make his death in office a certainty).I'll let you read my reply first, and then if you feel like a good "end of the week" laugh, you can find the original message below that.Speaking of end of the week, I hope you all have a nice weekend.I am going to take a few well-earned days off from blogging and confronting idiocy head on, but should be all rejuvenated and ready to go again on Monday!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY REPLY MESSAGE:
That is nonsense . . . show me any proof that McCain will die before his term is over. They said the same thing in 1980 about Ronald Reagan, who went on to serve TWO terms and live for another 15+ years after that.What evidence is there that Sarah Palin, if she were to become president, would send gays to "concentration camps" or ban "making out" in public? Also, the nice thing about leaving the gay marrriage issue to the states (which McCain seems to favor based on twice voting against a Federal Marriage Amendment) is that it won't matter how the president personally feels about it.Answer this question: Why would you, as a gay man, vote for a candidate who not only also opposes gay marriage, but wants to "appease" a nation like Iran where they hang gay men in public?Don't believe anything Barack Obama says. He is a phony self-serving disgrace who doesn't even like this country that much. He refuses to renounce long held associations with former domestic terrorists who were running around setting off pipe bombs at the same time McCain was a POW in Vietnam. I have lost count of the number of convicted felons (including disgraced former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick) who Obama has provided with glowing endorsements. He has also refused to renunce his ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farakhan, who is nothing more than Adolf Hitler in negro skin.And you think a man like this is fit to lead the country just because you worry that McCain's VP choice doesn't like kissing in public?If you truly love America and everything it stands for, the very thought of a Barack Obama presidency should repulse you. He and his ideas are living breathing symbols AGAINST what America stands for, and what this country has worked so hard to achieve.No disrespect intended to you as a person, but you are seriously deluded and need to do a little more research on this man who has deemed himself fit to lead a country that he isn't even that proud of (just like his wife) in the first place.
Casey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have been a republican all my life, believe in conservative values, love America and everything it stands for, never liked democrats, all they believe in is change, i love America the way it is and feel its the best country in the world, if i did not believe in America i would move out of the country, but i chooose to be here.i believe in the war in iraq, i believe we are fighting what could be the next natzi (sp)? but this election year i am turning the other way, me and my ex donated thousands of dollars in fundraising dinner to the Hillary campaign, we lost ( he lost the money ) why would you vote for someone that despises your lifestyle, if john maccain wins, he will die before his term is over and palin will be president, she hates the gays even more, she will send us all to concentration camps, making out in public will be illegal, having gay sex will be illegal and that beutiful right in california we have right now to get married to the person we love, thats amazing and it can be taken away. a little bit of an exageration. but to some extent true.do the rest of the community a favor and Barrackthevote!
MY REPLY MESSAGE:
That is nonsense . . . show me any proof that McCain will die before his term is over. They said the same thing in 1980 about Ronald Reagan, who went on to serve TWO terms and live for another 15+ years after that.What evidence is there that Sarah Palin, if she were to become president, would send gays to "concentration camps" or ban "making out" in public? Also, the nice thing about leaving the gay marrriage issue to the states (which McCain seems to favor based on twice voting against a Federal Marriage Amendment) is that it won't matter how the president personally feels about it.Answer this question: Why would you, as a gay man, vote for a candidate who not only also opposes gay marriage, but wants to "appease" a nation like Iran where they hang gay men in public?Don't believe anything Barack Obama says. He is a phony self-serving disgrace who doesn't even like this country that much. He refuses to renounce long held associations with former domestic terrorists who were running around setting off pipe bombs at the same time McCain was a POW in Vietnam. I have lost count of the number of convicted felons (including disgraced former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick) who Obama has provided with glowing endorsements. He has also refused to renunce his ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farakhan, who is nothing more than Adolf Hitler in negro skin.And you think a man like this is fit to lead the country just because you worry that McCain's VP choice doesn't like kissing in public?If you truly love America and everything it stands for, the very thought of a Barack Obama presidency should repulse you. He and his ideas are living breathing symbols AGAINST what America stands for, and what this country has worked so hard to achieve.No disrespect intended to you as a person, but you are seriously deluded and need to do a little more research on this man who has deemed himself fit to lead a country that he isn't even that proud of (just like his wife) in the first place.
Casey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have been a republican all my life, believe in conservative values, love America and everything it stands for, never liked democrats, all they believe in is change, i love America the way it is and feel its the best country in the world, if i did not believe in America i would move out of the country, but i chooose to be here.i believe in the war in iraq, i believe we are fighting what could be the next natzi (sp)? but this election year i am turning the other way, me and my ex donated thousands of dollars in fundraising dinner to the Hillary campaign, we lost ( he lost the money ) why would you vote for someone that despises your lifestyle, if john maccain wins, he will die before his term is over and palin will be president, she hates the gays even more, she will send us all to concentration camps, making out in public will be illegal, having gay sex will be illegal and that beutiful right in california we have right now to get married to the person we love, thats amazing and it can be taken away. a little bit of an exageration. but to some extent true.do the rest of the community a favor and Barrackthevote!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
JUST SAY NO to "Free Healthcare"
To no one's surprise, Barack Obama is touting the utopian idea of "free" health care. Sound too good to be true? Well there's definitely a reason why.
As a matter of ethics and respect for human dignity, I agree that some level of government-funded health care should be available to those who otherwise could not afford it. While I agree that basic health care is a human right, high quality health care is a privilege that, like all other privileges, must be EARNED.
What good is free healthcare if the quality of that healthcare is substandard at best? Just ask the veterans who have suffered through a stay at Walter Reed Hospital in DC. If anyone has earned the best health care possible, it's brave men and women who suffered permanent injury or disability (physical and/or mental) while fighting for our country. If the military hospitals are unable to provide this, I say we shut them down, layoff all the employees, and use the money to pay private hospitals to treat the veterans instead. They would receive much better care, and however expensive a price these hospitals charge, the government will probably still end up saving money in the long run because it no longer needs to pay to operate VA hospitals and pay the salary and benefits of the people who work there and perform such a poor job.
If my grandpa is having a heart attack, I can't afford to watch him die in the hospital waiting room because the doctors are too busy trying to revive someone from a crack overdose or deliver a baby several months premature to some trashy teenage girl who injected heroin while pregnant (and of course doesn't even know who the father is). That doesn't even count all of the illegal immigrants who are ahead in the triage line waiting for yet ANOTHER free handout.
I'm sorry, but I work hard for MY healthcare. If I wanted to be a nice guy and pay for someone else's, then I'd choose to do so myself instead of having the government decide for me. Anyone can have quality health care who wants it, if they would stop whining, get an education or else learn an important trade, and then procure a full time job where health benefits are provided not as a free handout, but part of compensation for hard work. As Ronald Reagan said in his farewell address back in 1989, he was always taught that "you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed upon you." That is the American way, and it's what has made our country so great. If everyone just sat around waiting for a free handout, how would we have ever made the progress we have as a nation? Would this nation still even exist? Grappling with these difficult questions a few years ago is what finally proved to me that the liberal nonsense I'd bought into for so long was just that- nonsense.
Although all this may sound harsh, I challenge people to visit any county hospital and see for themselves how long people are forced to wait in the emergency room to be treated for even the most serious, life-threatening conditions. If we had universal health care (aka socialized medicine), every hospital emergency room would operate this way, including the hospital where YOU may someday need lifesaving surgery or medical treatment.
caseyblog1.blogspot.com
As a matter of ethics and respect for human dignity, I agree that some level of government-funded health care should be available to those who otherwise could not afford it. While I agree that basic health care is a human right, high quality health care is a privilege that, like all other privileges, must be EARNED.
What good is free healthcare if the quality of that healthcare is substandard at best? Just ask the veterans who have suffered through a stay at Walter Reed Hospital in DC. If anyone has earned the best health care possible, it's brave men and women who suffered permanent injury or disability (physical and/or mental) while fighting for our country. If the military hospitals are unable to provide this, I say we shut them down, layoff all the employees, and use the money to pay private hospitals to treat the veterans instead. They would receive much better care, and however expensive a price these hospitals charge, the government will probably still end up saving money in the long run because it no longer needs to pay to operate VA hospitals and pay the salary and benefits of the people who work there and perform such a poor job.
If my grandpa is having a heart attack, I can't afford to watch him die in the hospital waiting room because the doctors are too busy trying to revive someone from a crack overdose or deliver a baby several months premature to some trashy teenage girl who injected heroin while pregnant (and of course doesn't even know who the father is). That doesn't even count all of the illegal immigrants who are ahead in the triage line waiting for yet ANOTHER free handout.
I'm sorry, but I work hard for MY healthcare. If I wanted to be a nice guy and pay for someone else's, then I'd choose to do so myself instead of having the government decide for me. Anyone can have quality health care who wants it, if they would stop whining, get an education or else learn an important trade, and then procure a full time job where health benefits are provided not as a free handout, but part of compensation for hard work. As Ronald Reagan said in his farewell address back in 1989, he was always taught that "you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed upon you." That is the American way, and it's what has made our country so great. If everyone just sat around waiting for a free handout, how would we have ever made the progress we have as a nation? Would this nation still even exist? Grappling with these difficult questions a few years ago is what finally proved to me that the liberal nonsense I'd bought into for so long was just that- nonsense.
Although all this may sound harsh, I challenge people to visit any county hospital and see for themselves how long people are forced to wait in the emergency room to be treated for even the most serious, life-threatening conditions. If we had universal health care (aka socialized medicine), every hospital emergency room would operate this way, including the hospital where YOU may someday need lifesaving surgery or medical treatment.
caseyblog1.blogspot.com
Matt Damon a Political Authority?
Matt Damon, even though he's smokin' hot, is unfortunately one of those celebrities who pretends that just because he can act in front of camera, that somehow makes him a credible authority on things he knows nothing about. His buddy Ben Affleck is even worse, and of significantly lower IQ. We might as well all promote Paris Hilton's energy plan. And if Britney Spears proposes a strategy for dealing with islamofacist Iran, let's go for it!
Personally, I'd worry more about gas prices and protecting our country from another 9/11 than Matt Damon's dinosaur concerns. In comparison, "lipstick on a pig" actually sounds important. Matt needs to stick to acting, and what should truly scare him is how much of his $15 million per film he'll be forking over in taxes if Obama wins this election.
Personally, I'd worry more about gas prices and protecting our country from another 9/11 than Matt Damon's dinosaur concerns. In comparison, "lipstick on a pig" actually sounds important. Matt needs to stick to acting, and what should truly scare him is how much of his $15 million per film he'll be forking over in taxes if Obama wins this election.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Ari Fleischer: McCain Was "Thorn In Bush's Side"
He just said it on Larry King Live when he finally was able to get a word in edgewise between Chuck Norris and Arianna Huffington bickering at each other.
So even Bush's former Press Secretary thinks it's complete nonsense when people compare McCain to Bush. John McCain absolutely can't stand Bush, and has never liked him. The matter should be settled by now.
Fleischer's exact words were, "If John McCain is George W. Bush, then I'm Arianna Huffington." That is a pretty risky gamble, so I think we should take Mr. Fleischer's word for it!
If you still need further proof, watch how enthusiastically McCain received this George W. Bush State of the Union Speech:
NOW ADMIT IT- IF MCCAIN PUT THIS FOOTAGE IN ONE OF HIS CAMPAIGN ADS HE'D SURELY PICK UP SOME GROUND IN THE POLLS =)
So even Bush's former Press Secretary thinks it's complete nonsense when people compare McCain to Bush. John McCain absolutely can't stand Bush, and has never liked him. The matter should be settled by now.
Fleischer's exact words were, "If John McCain is George W. Bush, then I'm Arianna Huffington." That is a pretty risky gamble, so I think we should take Mr. Fleischer's word for it!
If you still need further proof, watch how enthusiastically McCain received this George W. Bush State of the Union Speech:
NOW ADMIT IT- IF MCCAIN PUT THIS FOOTAGE IN ONE OF HIS CAMPAIGN ADS HE'D SURELY PICK UP SOME GROUND IN THE POLLS =)
Appease Iran? I Think Not!
This was my response to an e-mail earlier today from someone who argues it's a good idea to "appease Iran to prevent war."
Nothing personal, but if you were at all familiar with Iran and the history of U.S.-Iranian tensions, you would know that appeasing Iran would not prevent terror at all, quite the opposite in fact. It would make us more vulnerable. Do you really think we can believe or trust anything that corrupt, lying, terrorist aiding country says? Iran is a miserable hellhole governed by Islamic theocracy, full of dirty, dishonest, manipulative, anti-Jewish, anti-Gay, anti-women's rights THUGS who cloak their hatred in religious rhetoric. Islamic terrorists commit and advocate violent acts of terror and hate just for the sake of terror and hate. It's not about any dispute over territory or a political issue. It is about a seething hatred that their "religion" indoctrinates them with from a very young age.
I agree that we should not have gone to war with Iraq. All the military might in the world won't make a difference if you point it at the wrong target. However, we DID go to war in Iraq, we cannot change that, and the troops (which include many gay men) deserve to come home victorious and know that all of their sacrifice actually counted for something in the end.
Just so there is no confusion on how purely evil that the Iranians are, here is a political ad from the 1980 campaign. They've been like this for decades, and what makes you think that "appeasement" is going to change them?
I am sure the Iranians would absolutely love it if Obama won. See for yourself why:
Nothing personal, but if you were at all familiar with Iran and the history of U.S.-Iranian tensions, you would know that appeasing Iran would not prevent terror at all, quite the opposite in fact. It would make us more vulnerable. Do you really think we can believe or trust anything that corrupt, lying, terrorist aiding country says? Iran is a miserable hellhole governed by Islamic theocracy, full of dirty, dishonest, manipulative, anti-Jewish, anti-Gay, anti-women's rights THUGS who cloak their hatred in religious rhetoric. Islamic terrorists commit and advocate violent acts of terror and hate just for the sake of terror and hate. It's not about any dispute over territory or a political issue. It is about a seething hatred that their "religion" indoctrinates them with from a very young age.
I agree that we should not have gone to war with Iraq. All the military might in the world won't make a difference if you point it at the wrong target. However, we DID go to war in Iraq, we cannot change that, and the troops (which include many gay men) deserve to come home victorious and know that all of their sacrifice actually counted for something in the end.
Just so there is no confusion on how purely evil that the Iranians are, here is a political ad from the 1980 campaign. They've been like this for decades, and what makes you think that "appeasement" is going to change them?
I am sure the Iranians would absolutely love it if Obama won. See for yourself why:
The MANHUNT Scandal Continues
Well, well, I just came across the first gay man to officially announce that he is cancelling his MANHUNT.NET account if the website's founder really supports McCain. I just couldn't help but fire off this response . . .
Before taking such a drastic step, perhaps you should know some possible reasons why gay people are supporting McCain and refusing to allow their sexual orientation to cast their vote for them.
Maybe the bloggers at gaypatriot. net have a feasible answer:
"Many gay men and lesbians support this courageous veteran because we know he is sound on the most important issue of the day, the war against Islamofascism.
Indeed, we realize that that issue is particularly important to gay people, given the strong anti-gay bias of Muslim extremists and the continual persecution and execution of gay people in Islamic theocracies, like Iran."
Jamie Kirchick, editor of New Republic, also offers a possible explanation for such a horribly disturbing trend:
"When then–Tempe, Ariz., mayor Neil Giuliano revealed his homosexuality to preempt threats to out him, John was the first to tell the religious right, ‘This doesn’t make a damned bit of difference,’ Giuliano later told The Boston Globe.
A McCain presidency would transform the GOP for the better. Republicans chose a man who is driven by a temperament that inhibits him from resorting to the crass gay baiting of his peers."
In addition to cancelling our MANHUNT accounts, we'd also all better cancel our supscriptions to The Advocate. After all, they're the ones who published Kirchick's column in their March 20, 2008 issue. Don't just take my word for it, see for yourself:
http://www. advocate. com/exclusive_detail_ektid52837. asp
And here again is my initial post on the comments made by the MANHUNT.NET guru himself:
Those of you who frequently utilize the MANHUNT website to fulfill your insatiable need for no strings sex might want to know that Jonathan Crutchley, the founder and operator of the web site, is an avid McCain supporter and campaign contributor! In fact, according to gays4mccain. com (and you thought I was the only one), Mr. Crutchley donated the maximum amount allowed by law to the McCain campaign. The site also quotes Mr. Crutchley's justification for being guilty of a hypocrisy even more disgusting than the photo profiles in the geriatric category of his website:
"I believe McCain will be a better commander-in-chief than Obama, who also opposes gay marriage. If we have an experienced, seasoned person defending the country in this dangerous age, we will be able to argue about the gay agenda later. Yes, I am a Massachusetts Republican, which is about the same as being an Alabama Democrat. But don’t call me a ..liberal.' That’s an insult."
So to all of you who have hooked up on MANHUNT. NET - I sure hope the sex was good because it might just have given a nice financial boost to McCain's campaign. I'm definitely signing up now!
I can just picture gay men everywhere throwing their metal cockrings against the wall in disgust . . .
*So if you want to cancel your MANHUNT account, go right ahead. It will be another way you'll save money, along with lower taxes and gas prices. And oh, feeling safer from Islamic terror attacks isn't a bad thing either.
Cheers,
Casey
caseyblog1.blogspot.com
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Jesse
Date: Sep 10, 2008 4:46 PM
If Manhunt really supports McCain, then I am cancelling my accounts NOW!
Before taking such a drastic step, perhaps you should know some possible reasons why gay people are supporting McCain and refusing to allow their sexual orientation to cast their vote for them.
Maybe the bloggers at gaypatriot. net have a feasible answer:
"Many gay men and lesbians support this courageous veteran because we know he is sound on the most important issue of the day, the war against Islamofascism.
Indeed, we realize that that issue is particularly important to gay people, given the strong anti-gay bias of Muslim extremists and the continual persecution and execution of gay people in Islamic theocracies, like Iran."
Jamie Kirchick, editor of New Republic, also offers a possible explanation for such a horribly disturbing trend:
"When then–Tempe, Ariz., mayor Neil Giuliano revealed his homosexuality to preempt threats to out him, John was the first to tell the religious right, ‘This doesn’t make a damned bit of difference,’ Giuliano later told The Boston Globe.
A McCain presidency would transform the GOP for the better. Republicans chose a man who is driven by a temperament that inhibits him from resorting to the crass gay baiting of his peers."
In addition to cancelling our MANHUNT accounts, we'd also all better cancel our supscriptions to The Advocate. After all, they're the ones who published Kirchick's column in their March 20, 2008 issue. Don't just take my word for it, see for yourself:
http://www. advocate. com/exclusive_detail_ektid52837. asp
And here again is my initial post on the comments made by the MANHUNT.NET guru himself:
Those of you who frequently utilize the MANHUNT website to fulfill your insatiable need for no strings sex might want to know that Jonathan Crutchley, the founder and operator of the web site, is an avid McCain supporter and campaign contributor! In fact, according to gays4mccain. com (and you thought I was the only one), Mr. Crutchley donated the maximum amount allowed by law to the McCain campaign. The site also quotes Mr. Crutchley's justification for being guilty of a hypocrisy even more disgusting than the photo profiles in the geriatric category of his website:
"I believe McCain will be a better commander-in-chief than Obama, who also opposes gay marriage. If we have an experienced, seasoned person defending the country in this dangerous age, we will be able to argue about the gay agenda later. Yes, I am a Massachusetts Republican, which is about the same as being an Alabama Democrat. But don’t call me a ..liberal.' That’s an insult."
So to all of you who have hooked up on MANHUNT. NET - I sure hope the sex was good because it might just have given a nice financial boost to McCain's campaign. I'm definitely signing up now!
I can just picture gay men everywhere throwing their metal cockrings against the wall in disgust . . .
*So if you want to cancel your MANHUNT account, go right ahead. It will be another way you'll save money, along with lower taxes and gas prices. And oh, feeling safer from Islamic terror attacks isn't a bad thing either.
Cheers,
Casey
caseyblog1.blogspot.com
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Jesse
Date: Sep 10, 2008 4:46 PM
If Manhunt really supports McCain, then I am cancelling my accounts NOW!
Chillingly Relevant . . .
This is an ad from the 1980 presidential campaign. I am sure that today's terrorists want a "weak and manageable" president as well. Someone last night reminded me that foreigners overwhelmingly prefer Barack Obama over John McCain. Geez I wonder why . . .
We didn't give in then, and we shouldn't do it now either!
*Notice the credits at the end . . . this is no "attack ad" by Republicans.
We didn't give in then, and we shouldn't do it now either!
*Notice the credits at the end . . . this is no "attack ad" by Republicans.
Why The "Gay Marriage" Issue Is Irrelevant
Well, first and foremost, Barack Obama opposes gay marriage as much as John McCain. Neither candidate gets an advantage on GLBT issues. But here are two other important questions to consider:
1.) What good will "marriage" be if you can't enjoy it because of having to pay higher taxes and continuing to get gouged at the gas pump just cause we don't want to upset polar bears and caribou? You and your "partner" might be stuck at home every night stressed out because you have no money for a night out, vacation, or even Cher's 200th "greatest hits" CD. And aren't financial problems one of the main reasons why a lot of str8 couples get divorced?
2.) What good will "marriage" be if you can't enjoy it because of having to live in fear of another terrorist attack? And as we all know, those Islamicists sure love gay people, don't they? If you take issue with me, let me know so I can send you some pics showing what Iran does to even very young gay men.
*And when considering those two questions, also take into account that because Obama is against same sex marriage anyways, you're not even going to get that.
I think Jonathan Crutchley said it best (he's the founder and operator of MANHUNT. NET and also a major McCain supporter and campaign contributor): "If we have an experienced, seasoned person defending the country in this dangerous age, we will be able to argue about the gay agenda later."
Amen to that. There are much higher priorities right now than the "marriage" issue. As they say on the straight talk express, and you don't even need to be straight to hop on, COUNTRY FIRST, ME SECOND!!!
Casey
caseyblog1. blogspot. com
1.) What good will "marriage" be if you can't enjoy it because of having to pay higher taxes and continuing to get gouged at the gas pump just cause we don't want to upset polar bears and caribou? You and your "partner" might be stuck at home every night stressed out because you have no money for a night out, vacation, or even Cher's 200th "greatest hits" CD. And aren't financial problems one of the main reasons why a lot of str8 couples get divorced?
2.) What good will "marriage" be if you can't enjoy it because of having to live in fear of another terrorist attack? And as we all know, those Islamicists sure love gay people, don't they? If you take issue with me, let me know so I can send you some pics showing what Iran does to even very young gay men.
*And when considering those two questions, also take into account that because Obama is against same sex marriage anyways, you're not even going to get that.
I think Jonathan Crutchley said it best (he's the founder and operator of MANHUNT. NET and also a major McCain supporter and campaign contributor): "If we have an experienced, seasoned person defending the country in this dangerous age, we will be able to argue about the gay agenda later."
Amen to that. There are much higher priorities right now than the "marriage" issue. As they say on the straight talk express, and you don't even need to be straight to hop on, COUNTRY FIRST, ME SECOND!!!
Casey
caseyblog1. blogspot. com
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
ABORTION: The Democrats' Favorite "Scare Tactic"
CNN found a middle-aged woman at last week's GOP convention who was a former Hilary Clinton supporter eager to learn more about VP candidateSarah Palin and listen to her speech that evening. Since this woman was Democrat and pro-choice, the reporter naturally asked her if she was concerned at all about Palin's position on abortion. Her response was that she was not at all worried and her exact words were, "abortion rights are not going to go away." She then pointed out that during every presidential election, the Democrats use the abortion issue to "scare" women into voting for their candidate, insisting that the days of female reproductive rights are numbered with a Republican in the White House. Perhaps after years as a Democrat herself, she's caught on to something.
I had never thought of it that way before, but then I began putting things into perspective. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. After eight years of Reagan, four years of the first Bush, and eight years of the neocon goon whose time is almost up, abortion rights are still alive and well. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court is even CLOSE to overturing Roe. George W. Bush's two nominees to the high court, despite being solidly conservative, are not so to the extent that the far right wing crowd, and probably even President Bush himself, had hoped for. Being staunchly pro-choice myself, I insist the warning thundered by the Democrats that the two newest judges are deadset on ruling against abortion rights is simply unfounded.
Recent proof of this is a decision from last year's Supreme Court term, Federal Express v. Holowecki, (06-1322). In this case, a total of 14 current and former employees at Federal Express sued for age discrimination under the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act). FedEx tried to get one employee's suit thrown out because the employee had not filled out the proper "charge form" with the EEOC before filing the lawsuit. This occurred because the EEOC gave her the wrong form. This older lady thought she was filling out the proper form, when it turns out she was not.
I suppose this teaches us all a valuable lesson: When someone warns you that "the sky is falling," remember to look up and make sure it really is.
I had never thought of it that way before, but then I began putting things into perspective. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. After eight years of Reagan, four years of the first Bush, and eight years of the neocon goon whose time is almost up, abortion rights are still alive and well. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court is even CLOSE to overturing Roe. George W. Bush's two nominees to the high court, despite being solidly conservative, are not so to the extent that the far right wing crowd, and probably even President Bush himself, had hoped for. Being staunchly pro-choice myself, I insist the warning thundered by the Democrats that the two newest judges are deadset on ruling against abortion rights is simply unfounded.
Recent proof of this is a decision from last year's Supreme Court term, Federal Express v. Holowecki, (06-1322). In this case, a total of 14 current and former employees at Federal Express sued for age discrimination under the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act). FedEx tried to get one employee's suit thrown out because the employee had not filled out the proper "charge form" with the EEOC before filing the lawsuit. This occurred because the EEOC gave her the wrong form. This older lady thought she was filling out the proper form, when it turns out she was not.
If Bush's two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, were as far to the right as some people think, they would jump at any chance to throw out a discrimination lawsuit, even on a technicality, since they would not think very highly of employment discrimination laws in the first place. However, only Justices Scalia and Thomas, as you'd reasonably expect, jumped at this chance. Neither Roberts nor Alito joined these two in their dissent, and the court ruled 7-2 (coincidentally the same margin the 1973 court decided Roe v Wade) that the employee should not be barred from filing her lawsuit because some incompetent EEOC employee screwed up and gave her the wrong form.
Writing for the court, Justice Kennedy said that the prescribed system for filing charges of employment discrimination "must be accessible to individuals who have no detailed knowledge of the relevant statutory mechanisms and agency processes" and that discrimination complaints filed with the EEOC should be interpreted "to protect the employee's rights and statutory remedies." Both Roberts and Alito joined this opinion, which they surely would not have joined if they possessed the type of "far right" jurisprudence that would lead one to overturn Roe.
If Justices Roberts and Alito were as "far right" as some people insist, they would have joined the dissenting opinion filed by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia), which complained that "the standard the court applies is broader than the ordinary meaning of the word 'charge' . . . a compainant's intent to trigger actions unrelated to a charge-processing plainly cannot form the basis for distinguishing charges from other inquiries." Justice Thomas then went as far to write that even "the clarity and pervasiveness of alleged discrimination is irrelevant to the employee's intent to file a charge." THIS is the type of "far right" jurisprudence that would overturn Roe v. Wade. However, since neither Roberts nor Alito elected to join Thomas's dissent in this case, it is utterly preposterous to insist that either of them would suddenly concur with Thomas and Scalia on the abortion issue. It is therefore ridiculous to conclude that the Supreme Court is only one vote away from stripping women of their right to choose. There is no legitimate proof or argument to support this.
A few other employment discrimination cases from the recent term further demonstrate my point, in that the two newest justices once again joined an opinion ruling in favor of employees alleging discrimination, thus allowing them to proceed with their claims in the lower courts:
CBOCS West v. Humphries (06-1431)
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (06-1505)
*Another case worth mentioning is Gomez-Perez v. Potter (06-1321). Although in this case, Roberts did join Thomas and Scalia in dissent, Alito actually wrote the majority opinion, ruling in favor of a postal employee who complained she was retaliated against after complaining of age discrimination. Alito declared that under the ADEA, "retaliation for complaining about age discrimination is discrimination based on age, just as retaliation for advocacy on behalf of the black . . . [is] discrimination based on race." An ultra conservative, anti-Roe jurist would never even THINK about making such a declaration!
Also, even if the two newest justices were as "far right" as some still worry they are, that would only mean four votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is one short of a majority. The Democrats then proceed to warn that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, probably the strongest supporter of abortion rights on the court, is getting very old and that if she retires within the next four years and is replaced by a pro-life justice, that would give a fifth vote. This idea is comical because again, there are not four sure votes to overturn Roe (only two), and I guarantee you that there is NO WAY Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down if there is even a chance that her seat would go to a pro-life justice. I guarantee you that the woman would sooner be wheeled into court on a gurney and hooked up to life-support than give her seat to anyone but an abortion rights supporter.
Furthermore, even if worse comes to worse (and it won't for precisely the reasons I've already mentioned), people still don't understand that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would NOT criminalize abortion. A court does not make the law, only interprets it. Overturning Roe would mean that an individual state is allowed to make the decision whether or not abortion remains legal in that state. So if a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and abortion is illegal in her state, I guarantee you that she'll have plenty of states to choose from where she can obtain an abortion legally. Ironically, it would in a way make freedom of choice even more expansive! Again, however, no need to worry since Roe v Wade isn't even close to being overturned anyway and will not be no matter who wins the presidential election.
*Before blindly accepting the Democrats' prophecy of impending doom regarding abortion rights, I encourage you to actually read the Roe v. Wade decision in order to correctly ascertain what the Supreme Court really said. I'll even be ever so kind as to provide a link to the decision:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/410/113/case.html
To conclude, the argument that electing McCain and Palin will place abortion rights in jeopardy is deeply flawed. Nonetheless, the Democrats are still pulling their typical tricks on women just to get the female vote. Thankfully, many women, including some Democrats themselves, just aren't buying it anymore.I suppose this teaches us all a valuable lesson: When someone warns you that "the sky is falling," remember to look up and make sure it really is.
A Constitutional Champion!
Gun Rights Warrior Fights For NRA in California
Chuck Michel’s Latest Case Challenges Ban On Firearms In San Francisco Public Housing
By Rebecca Breyer
Los Angeles Daily Journal
Here are two things you might not know about C.D. “Chuck” Michel, a Long-Beach based attorney who often represents the National Rifle Association in high-profile litigation.
Chuck Michel’s Latest Case Challenges Ban On Firearms In San Francisco Public Housing
By Rebecca Breyer
Los Angeles Daily Journal
Here are two things you might not know about C.D. “Chuck” Michel, a Long-Beach based attorney who often represents the National Rifle Association in high-profile litigation.
One of his Labrador Retrievers is named Heston, after Charlton Heston of movie and gun-rights fame. His eldest son is named Colton- Colt, for short, after the iconic gun brand.
Sydne, who is a deputy city prosecutor in Redondo Beach, wouldn’t hear of it.
“When my second son came along, I wanted to name him Glock, but she was wise to me by then,” Michel said.
Michel, 50, is managing partner of Trutanich-Michel in Lon Beach. His latest lawsuit on behalf of the National Rifle Association came one day after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision finding an individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008 DJDAR 9813 (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf). Filed in San Francisco federal court on June 27, the lawsuit charged that a San Francisco Housing Authority lease provision banning weapons of all kinds violates residents’ Second Amendment Rights. Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority, 08-3112.
“He’s diligent, hard-working, a creative thinker.” said Christopher A. Conte, legislative counsel for the NRA in Virginia. “He has a genuine passion for what he does and cares about the issue from a civil rights perspective.”
Obama's On A Real "Bridge To Nowhere"
Okay, so the latest hotbed issue where Barack Obama thinks he can take VP candidate Sarah Palin to task is on this entire "Bridge to Nowhere" issue. Once again, like all other attempts to discredit Palin, this one also backfires and makes her look even more appealing. Heaven forbid a politician is even more fiscally responsible with federal monies that expected! We can't have that, can we? So here are the FACTS about the entire "Bridge to Nowhere" issue that ends up working in Sarah Palin's favor.
When Sarah Palin was running for governor of Alaska in 2006, there was a proposal on the table to allocate $400 million dollars of federal funds to construct a bridge from the Alaskan mainland to a remote island. The island has only 50 inhabitants and an airplane landing strip. During the gubernatorial debates, Palin was asked about this proposal and said it sounded like a good idea.
However, once Palin won the governor's race and took office, she realized that there were much better ways Alaska could use federal funding than by building this "Bridge to Nowhere." When she actually had the money in front of her, she realized what a huge waste it would be to use this "earmark" funding for such a project when there were more important priorities. She thus opted to use the funding for other projects. I bet that she also actually, heaven forbid, LISTENED to her constituents, many of whom agreed that other things should take priority when it comes to how Alaska spends its federal dollars.
The Obama campaign argues, in the words of Obama himself, that this was "shameless" and that Sarah Palin is trying to "reinvent herself." Yet he fails to mention what exactly is so shameless about a governor deciding not to waste government money on such a needless project, even if the project sounded like a good idea before. When it came time to make the decision on how to spend the money, Palin decided she was going to keep her promise to the Alaskan people to make the state more fiscally responsible. This isn't reinventing yourself; it's keeping your word.
So this is an example of why, in and of itself, it's not a bad thing for politicians to "flip flop" sometimes. It always depends on each individual case: What are they specifically choosing to "flip" away from, and what specifically do they "flop" to instead? If the "flop" is to making more responsible fiscal decisions, that is admirable. Again, heaven forbid that a governor is even BETTER at fiscal responsibility than anticipated.
Another example of a good "flip flop" are the throngs of voters, particularly white females, who in recent weeks have chosen to "flip" away from supporting Obama, and "flop" to supporting McCain instead.
So if Barack Obama wants to make a big deal about this issue, thinking it somehow makes Sarah Palin look bad, he is the one on a real "bridge to nowhere" that he constructed all on his own.
Sorry Mr. Obama, but you're now 0 for about 6,752 (and counting) on your attempts to attack Mrs. Palin's record.
You'll need to try again and move on to something else.
When Sarah Palin was running for governor of Alaska in 2006, there was a proposal on the table to allocate $400 million dollars of federal funds to construct a bridge from the Alaskan mainland to a remote island. The island has only 50 inhabitants and an airplane landing strip. During the gubernatorial debates, Palin was asked about this proposal and said it sounded like a good idea.
However, once Palin won the governor's race and took office, she realized that there were much better ways Alaska could use federal funding than by building this "Bridge to Nowhere." When she actually had the money in front of her, she realized what a huge waste it would be to use this "earmark" funding for such a project when there were more important priorities. She thus opted to use the funding for other projects. I bet that she also actually, heaven forbid, LISTENED to her constituents, many of whom agreed that other things should take priority when it comes to how Alaska spends its federal dollars.
The Obama campaign argues, in the words of Obama himself, that this was "shameless" and that Sarah Palin is trying to "reinvent herself." Yet he fails to mention what exactly is so shameless about a governor deciding not to waste government money on such a needless project, even if the project sounded like a good idea before. When it came time to make the decision on how to spend the money, Palin decided she was going to keep her promise to the Alaskan people to make the state more fiscally responsible. This isn't reinventing yourself; it's keeping your word.
So this is an example of why, in and of itself, it's not a bad thing for politicians to "flip flop" sometimes. It always depends on each individual case: What are they specifically choosing to "flip" away from, and what specifically do they "flop" to instead? If the "flop" is to making more responsible fiscal decisions, that is admirable. Again, heaven forbid that a governor is even BETTER at fiscal responsibility than anticipated.
Another example of a good "flip flop" are the throngs of voters, particularly white females, who in recent weeks have chosen to "flip" away from supporting Obama, and "flop" to supporting McCain instead.
So if Barack Obama wants to make a big deal about this issue, thinking it somehow makes Sarah Palin look bad, he is the one on a real "bridge to nowhere" that he constructed all on his own.
Sorry Mr. Obama, but you're now 0 for about 6,752 (and counting) on your attempts to attack Mrs. Palin's record.
You'll need to try again and move on to something else.
Obama's "Housing Problem"
I think someone needs to call Guiness Book of World Records. Does anyone else have this many felonious friends?
Is Obama AFRAID of Sarah Palin?
I love this. Even your typical "liberal media" can't help but make fun of Barack Obama for letting Sarah Palin intimidate him so much. Sorry folks, but this gal's for real . . .
And why is Obama wasting so much valuable campaign time "preaching to the choir" in Michigan? It's a state he is probably going to win anyways, as I believe that no Republican has taken Michigan since Reagan in 1984, because of the heavy labor union presence (I guess the workers STILL haven't learned their lesson since the GM plant was shut down and all those jobs were lost, but oh well). I think it's going to come down to the same two states as in the last two elections: Ohio and Florida. And you can bet that Republican voters will be OUT IN FORCE on election day due to the "scare" of the previous two elections. It's just getting easier and easier for McCain to win, even before he smokes Obama in the upcoming debates. Oh well, now for the real fun . . .
Obama Turns Up the Heat on Palin
FARMINGTON HILLS, Mich. (Sept. 9) - Listening to Barack Obama, it can seem like Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is the main person standing between him and the White House instead of John McCain.
That is supposed to be Obama's distinction, and he's not taking kindly to Palin trying to claim it. Especially when it appears the new star on the GOP ticket is helping boost its standing: McCain has jumped to a dead heat or narrow lead over Obama in the latest national polls since choosing Palin as his running mate.
Obama said last week's Republican National Convention did a good job of highlighting Palin's biography — "Mother, governor, moose shooter. That's cool," he said. But he said Palin really is just another Republican politician, one who is stretching the truth about her record.
"When John McCain gets up there with Sarah Palin and says, `We're for change,' ... what are they talking about?" Obama said Monday, arguing that they aren't offering different ideas from President Bush and they are just trying to steal his campaign theme because it seemed to be working.
"It was just like a month ago they were all saying, `Oh, it's experience, experience, experience.' Then they chose Palin and they started talking about change, change, change," he said.
Obama's campaign seemed to be caught off guard by McCain's surprise pick of Palin on Aug. 29. Obama's spokesman initially blasted her as a former small-town mayor with zero foreign policy experience who wants to continue Bush's policies. But Obama quickly walked the statement back with more congratulatory words about Palin as a compelling addition to the ticket.
Voters, particularly women, seem to agree, according to new polls. An ABC News-Washington Post survey showed white women have moved from backing Obama by 8 points to supporting McCain by 12 points, with majorities viewing Palin favorably and saying she boosts their faith in McCain's decisions.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said there's no doubt Palin is helping excite the GOP base, but what remains to be seen is how she plays with swing voters over the remaining two months of the campaign.
"There's no question they believe Governor Palin has given them a surge of energy in the short term," he said. "We'll see where we stand eight weeks from now."
With Palin out on the campaign trail every day blasting Obama, it became increasingly clear he had to respond and try to undermine her credibility. He was careful with his approach, declining in an interview on MSNBC's "Countdown" on Monday to respond directly to a question about whether she's too inexperienced to be next in line to the presidency.
But Obama's campaign saw an opening when the McCain-Palin campaign released a new ad Monday called "Original Mavericks" that included the claim that Palin stopped the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, a nearly $400 million proposal to build a bridge to an island in Alaska occupied by just 50 residents and an airport. Obama called the claim "shameless."
Palin voiced support for the bridge during her campaign to become Alaska's governor, although she was critical of the size, and later abandoned plans for the project. She used the federal dollars for other projects in Alaska.
"A bunch of heat started generating because people were thinking, `Why are we building a bridge to nowhere?'" Obama said to laughter from a packed gymnasium of supporters in the Detroit suburb of Farmington Hills. Some booed at the mention of her name.
"So a deal was cut where Alaska still got the money. They just didn't build a bridge with it, and now she's out there acting like she was fighting this thing the whole time," he said, jabbing his fist in the air like a boxer. He released his own ad in response to the GOP spot that says McCain and Palin are "politicians lying about their records."
At an earlier stop Monday in Flint, Obama said of the bridge claim: "I mean, you can't just make stuff up. You can't just re-create yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid (which is why you will lose the election, Mr. Obama). What they are looking for is someone who has consistently been calling for change."
On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that Palin has billed Alaska taxpayers for more than $43,000 in travel and lodging expenses for her children and husband during the 19 months she has been governor.
Sharon Leighow, a spokeswoman for the Alaska governor's office, told the Post that many of the invitations Palin receives also request that she bring her family. And the newspaper pointed out that Palin's travel expenses are far less than those of her predecessor, Frank Murkowski.
McCain-Palin spokesman Tucker Bounds said Obama's negative attacks show he is increasingly desperate.
"Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin have shook up the establishment and delivered real reforms," Bounds said. "Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
Associated Press writer Christopher Wills contributed to this report from Chicago.
Monday, September 8, 2008
America's REAL Black Voice . . .
God bless these wonderful Americans from Georgia . . . that's all I can say. Here's what I wrote to them earlier tonight in response to their original message (scroll down and you'll see it). These are the real American people who make our country so great!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello There =)
I won't lie- I am getting flack EVERY day from other gay men. It's the same things that you and your husband probably hear from other blacks- "sell out," hypocrite," or even worse, "Uncle Tom." However, you and your husband should take that as a compliment because that's exactly what the NAACP and so called "black activists" say about Clarence Thomas, who often, in my estimation as a law student, seems like the only one of our nine Supreme Court justices who even has HALF a brain. Remember when he was nominated in 1991? Remember when Anita Hill all of the sudden decided to "come forward" and accuse sexual harassment? Never mind that she and him worked together at the EEOC, so she certainly knew the proper channels to go through at the time she claims she was "sexually harassed" ?
That's why the feminists despise Sarah Palin so much. It brings back memories of what Clarence Thomas had to endure. And btw, it was that same Joe Biden (who is Obama's choice of VP) who presided over Thomas's confirmation hearings and made very clear his distaste for Clarence Thomas even before the Anita Hill fiasco (which was just that- a fiasco).
Luckily, Clarence Thomas stood his ground and refused to succumb to REAL racism. I read his entire memoir, "My Grandfather's Son" in one sitting. A few of my friends still refuse to speak to me because I stood them up (unintentionally) when I couldn't put that book down. I would highly recommend that book to you and your husband, and every other American, no matter what their skin color. They are the memoirs of a man who faced racism of the worst kind: from his fellow blacks who you'd think would support him. It's exactly the same type of crap that Sarah Palin is having to face right now from these feminists. They seethe with hatred towards her the same way a lot of blacks seethed with hatred (and continue to do so) towards Clarence Thomas.
I greatly admire you and your husband. I refuse to "sell out" just because I am gay in the same way that you and your husband refuse to do so because of the color of your skin. Most of the "homophobia" I have endured has come from other gays, and I am willing to bet that most of the racism you and your husband have endured comes from other blacks.
That is exactly what is great about the McCain-Palin campaign. The only label they care about is "American." They don't give a RAT'S ASS about whether you are male or female, black or white, gay or straight, young or old, fat ot thin, Lakers fan or Clippers fan (sorry, I am from L.A. so I had to throw that one in). If you're American, you deserve opportunity, not in the form of a free handout, but the chance to make something of your life and to "pay your way" as our founding fathers intended.
God bless you and your husband. The two of you can be whatever color you want: black, white, green, magenta, purple, or yellow (just stay away from the bright orange shade of Hilary's pantsuit). You're still Americans, and that's all that should matter.
Casey
P.S. - Feel free to forward this to as many of your friends as you want, especially card-carrying NAACP members. It's time that blacks decide, just like I have decided as a gay man, that I am no longer going to fall for these nonsense liberal games and allow my sexual orientation to make my decisions for me =)
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: QW (McCain-Palin 08)
Date: Sep 8, 2008 7:36 PM
How r u? I just wanted to say hi and say that I so admire your "maverick" side. I guess we are BOTH pretty much a minority lol. I know I am working hard to open the minds of other blacks to McCain-Palin and its working but slowly I would say. Im just curious, what is the reaction u get in the gay community about McCain-Palin's ticket? What made u get the guts to do the "right" thing? My husband said you commented on his blog today and he said you are a cool ass person. I think the misconception that liberals like to paint of us conservatives is that we are all hateful, homophobic, and racist which is just not true. I can tell u that most of the racism, sexism, and stereotyping have been from liberals. I love how liberals lecture me on my blogs about how I dont understand the "black experience" then when I state facts, they call me a racial slur lol. Anyway, have a wonderful night my friend.
Quanicia
Another One Of Obama's Upstanding "Friends"
Well I'll be damned! It's none other than disgraced former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick!
Not to worry Kwame, if Obama wins, he'll probably pick you to head the CIA.
Thanks to Matt in Maryland for the info . . .
What Recession?
Recession On Hold-- Poverty & Unemployment Decline During Bush Years
And, it looks like the recession is once again on hold.
Yahoo Finance reported:
The economy shifted to a higher gear in the spring, growing at its fastest pace in nearly a year as foreign buyers snapped up U.S. exports and tax rebates spurred shoppers at home.
America's North Shore Journal reported:
Bubba didn't mention this in his speech here in Denver last night.
More... David Harsanyi explained today why it's no wonder Dems didn't want former President Bill Clinton to speak on the economy this week. The growth during the Clinton years was due to free market capitalism and not populism, or isolationism.
The jump in claims that began in the middle of July can be attributed to the government's extension of jobless benefits under the spending bill signed by President George W. Bush in June. The government hasn't been able to quantify the program's impact on initial claims.
The unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits, which tends to track the jobless rate, rose to 2.6 percent from 2.5 percent. Thirteen states and territories reported an increase in claims, while 40 had a decrease. These data are reported with a one-week lag.
To contact the reporter on this story: Timothy R. Homan in Washington at thoman1@bloomberg.net
Rub It In All You Want!
Get a load of this . . . One of my dear, yet dearly misguided friends just sent me a message. He says he actually hopes McCain DOES win so he can "rub it in my face" when I realize what a bad president he is.
My reply: "Fair enough- you can do that the same day I get my big tax refund check and our troops come home victorious from Iraq."
I'll never be able to live with myself after that . . .
My reply: "Fair enough- you can do that the same day I get my big tax refund check and our troops come home victorious from Iraq."
I'll never be able to live with myself after that . . .
Classic Debate Moments
I am really really excited about the upcoming presidential debates, and am looking forward to them even more than everyone else is looking forward to Lindsay Lohan finally admitting she's a lesbian.
John McCain has already began to surge ahead of Barack Obama in the polls, and the debates will put the icing on the cake. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the debates involve a little more than just turning on the charisma and making a nice motivational speech. He'll actually be questioned and taken to task about REAL issues. I can just see him faltering even worse that Britney Spears did in her "comeback" performance at last year's VMA's.
So in anticipation of the upcoming debates, here are a few classic debate moments from one of the best presidents, if not THE best president, in our country's history:
John McCain has already began to surge ahead of Barack Obama in the polls, and the debates will put the icing on the cake. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the debates involve a little more than just turning on the charisma and making a nice motivational speech. He'll actually be questioned and taken to task about REAL issues. I can just see him faltering even worse that Britney Spears did in her "comeback" performance at last year's VMA's.
So in anticipation of the upcoming debates, here are a few classic debate moments from one of the best presidents, if not THE best president, in our country's history:
A Black Man's Case Against Barack Obama
I found this very provocative, especially regarding the abortion issue (and I'm actually pro-choice).
This comes from the blog of a gentleman in Georgia:
The Top 10 Reasons Why This Black Guy Does NOT Vote Democrat!!!
With both major party conventions behinds us and less than two months to go until Election Day I felt compelled to throw my two cents into the public arena as most people really begin focus on a very heated race for the presidency. Many people are talking about the historic implications of this election with a black man at the top of the Democrat ticket and a white woman at the VP spot on the Republican ticket. Regardless of which side wins in November it will be a first for our country. So with that said and out of the way let's get down to business.
Honestly it doesn't really matter who the Democrat nominee for president is. Whether it is Barack Obama or Fred Flintstone I could care less. The bottom line is that the Democrat platform is completely INCOMPATIBLE with my values and beliefs. Period! You see I am not one of the 90 % of black people in the country who have monolithically voted Democrat since the Civil Rights era of the 1960's. I typically get called a "sell-out" or "Uncle Tom" for my position but I find that label ignorant and juvenile. Actually the reason I vote the way I do is because I do care about the plight of black people now and for future generations. I urge people, especially black people, who chastise me for not "making a vote for history" to actually check the history of who and what they are casting their vote for. Don't succumb to made for TV soundbites or soaring speeches and do bona fide, credible research. I'm talking about getting the facts concerning peoples' backgrounds, voting records, personal and professional associations, etc.
So in no particular order here they go:
1. Democrats advocate abortion. I am against abortion! I believe abortion is murder and should not be used as a form of birth control because life begins at conception. And to black folks who want to complain about losing your status as the number one minority group in the country, I say stop killing your babies and you wouldn't have to press 1 for English whenever you call customer service. There would be 13 million more beautiful black people walking this earth today if they hadn't fallen victim to abortion.
http://www. blackgenocide. org/home. html
2. I believe in a strong military and national defense. Democrats are too wishy-washy, weak and wimpy on the issue. Because of extreme cases of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), Democrat leaders and surrogates, not to mention a very biased liberal media, have undermined national security and the war effort almost from the start. I'll just say this current crop of Democrats ain't your grandfather's Democrat party of the WWII generation where they kicked ass, won and asked questions later.
3. Democrats advocate universal health care for all Americans. I am in favor of free market solutions and less government control to health care. I prefer not to have health care that has to be rationed out by some politician or bureacrat. Just look at other countries that have universal healthcare or socialized medicine. Not good!!!
http://city-journal. org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare. html
http://www. freemarketcure. com/
4. I believe in low taxes. I strongly disagree with income redistribution through progressive taxation especially to pay for failed social programs. Okay translation: I want to keep more of the money I earn in my own pocket. I believe I can spend my money better than the government can. Whether you are conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, you can't tell me you didn't get sick to your stomach looking at your first paycheck trying to figure out the difference between net and gross.
5. Democrats advocate strict gun control laws. I believe in the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Stop making it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves against criminals. Because I know for certain if an intruder steps foot in my home he'll be spitting up bullets because I have no problem busting a cap in his ass. Shoot first ask questions later.
6. Democrats coddle convicted criminals and are against the death penalty. I believe in stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, most importantly the death penalty especially in cases of premeditated murder, rape or treason. And to those people who want to debate that capital punishment is inhumane, I say take that position concerning the victims of these crimes? I'm all for the Robin Harris school of thought on crime. Start watching the clip at 10:30 (waring Rated R) - Check out this video: Robin Harris - HBO One Night Stand
7. Democrats advocate affirmative action. I do not support giving an individual preference or advantage based on a person's race, ethnic background, political affiliation or gender. I believe in picking the most qualified person for the job. After all isn't that the essence of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. "…we will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
8. Democrats advocate extreme environmentalism and the religion of man-made global warming. I believe in being a good steward of the environment and can support "common sense" conservation; however the dead tree does not have the same rights as I do. Sorry I just don't buy it. What I can subscribe to is using more of our country's own natural resources for true energy independence. Drill here, drill now - the caribou will be just fine. C'mon even Diddy is complaining about the price of gas, LOL…
9. Democrats are beholden to the NEA and corrupt teachers' unions and are against choice in education. I believe as a parent I have the right to choose an alternative to a failing public school. I am totally in favor of a voucher that will enable me to take my tax money and spend it on an educational alternative to government run liberal indoctrination camps, oops I mean public school.
10. Democrats advocate the myth of separation of church and state. I believe in freedom of religion not freedom from religion and support displays of faith in the public square. After all if you have people running around naked protesting because some people like to wear fur then that high school coach should be able to lead his team in prayer before the big game, right? I wrote a blog on this last year.
So as you can see it really, really doesn't matter who is at the top of the Democrat presidential ticket. I just can't pull the lever for this group. So the next time someone, anyone, asks me, "Don't you want to see a black guy elected president?" I'll say sure I do but not the guy who is running for the job right now.
This comes from the blog of a gentleman in Georgia:
The Top 10 Reasons Why This Black Guy Does NOT Vote Democrat!!!
With both major party conventions behinds us and less than two months to go until Election Day I felt compelled to throw my two cents into the public arena as most people really begin focus on a very heated race for the presidency. Many people are talking about the historic implications of this election with a black man at the top of the Democrat ticket and a white woman at the VP spot on the Republican ticket. Regardless of which side wins in November it will be a first for our country. So with that said and out of the way let's get down to business.
Honestly it doesn't really matter who the Democrat nominee for president is. Whether it is Barack Obama or Fred Flintstone I could care less. The bottom line is that the Democrat platform is completely INCOMPATIBLE with my values and beliefs. Period! You see I am not one of the 90 % of black people in the country who have monolithically voted Democrat since the Civil Rights era of the 1960's. I typically get called a "sell-out" or "Uncle Tom" for my position but I find that label ignorant and juvenile. Actually the reason I vote the way I do is because I do care about the plight of black people now and for future generations. I urge people, especially black people, who chastise me for not "making a vote for history" to actually check the history of who and what they are casting their vote for. Don't succumb to made for TV soundbites or soaring speeches and do bona fide, credible research. I'm talking about getting the facts concerning peoples' backgrounds, voting records, personal and professional associations, etc.
So in no particular order here they go:
1. Democrats advocate abortion. I am against abortion! I believe abortion is murder and should not be used as a form of birth control because life begins at conception. And to black folks who want to complain about losing your status as the number one minority group in the country, I say stop killing your babies and you wouldn't have to press 1 for English whenever you call customer service. There would be 13 million more beautiful black people walking this earth today if they hadn't fallen victim to abortion.
http://www. blackgenocide. org/home. html
2. I believe in a strong military and national defense. Democrats are too wishy-washy, weak and wimpy on the issue. Because of extreme cases of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), Democrat leaders and surrogates, not to mention a very biased liberal media, have undermined national security and the war effort almost from the start. I'll just say this current crop of Democrats ain't your grandfather's Democrat party of the WWII generation where they kicked ass, won and asked questions later.
3. Democrats advocate universal health care for all Americans. I am in favor of free market solutions and less government control to health care. I prefer not to have health care that has to be rationed out by some politician or bureacrat. Just look at other countries that have universal healthcare or socialized medicine. Not good!!!
http://city-journal. org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare. html
http://www. freemarketcure. com/
4. I believe in low taxes. I strongly disagree with income redistribution through progressive taxation especially to pay for failed social programs. Okay translation: I want to keep more of the money I earn in my own pocket. I believe I can spend my money better than the government can. Whether you are conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, you can't tell me you didn't get sick to your stomach looking at your first paycheck trying to figure out the difference between net and gross.
5. Democrats advocate strict gun control laws. I believe in the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Stop making it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves against criminals. Because I know for certain if an intruder steps foot in my home he'll be spitting up bullets because I have no problem busting a cap in his ass. Shoot first ask questions later.
6. Democrats coddle convicted criminals and are against the death penalty. I believe in stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, most importantly the death penalty especially in cases of premeditated murder, rape or treason. And to those people who want to debate that capital punishment is inhumane, I say take that position concerning the victims of these crimes? I'm all for the Robin Harris school of thought on crime. Start watching the clip at 10:30 (waring Rated R) - Check out this video: Robin Harris - HBO One Night Stand
7. Democrats advocate affirmative action. I do not support giving an individual preference or advantage based on a person's race, ethnic background, political affiliation or gender. I believe in picking the most qualified person for the job. After all isn't that the essence of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. "…we will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
8. Democrats advocate extreme environmentalism and the religion of man-made global warming. I believe in being a good steward of the environment and can support "common sense" conservation; however the dead tree does not have the same rights as I do. Sorry I just don't buy it. What I can subscribe to is using more of our country's own natural resources for true energy independence. Drill here, drill now - the caribou will be just fine. C'mon even Diddy is complaining about the price of gas, LOL…
9. Democrats are beholden to the NEA and corrupt teachers' unions and are against choice in education. I believe as a parent I have the right to choose an alternative to a failing public school. I am totally in favor of a voucher that will enable me to take my tax money and spend it on an educational alternative to government run liberal indoctrination camps, oops I mean public school.
10. Democrats advocate the myth of separation of church and state. I believe in freedom of religion not freedom from religion and support displays of faith in the public square. After all if you have people running around naked protesting because some people like to wear fur then that high school coach should be able to lead his team in prayer before the big game, right? I wrote a blog on this last year.
So as you can see it really, really doesn't matter who is at the top of the Democrat presidential ticket. I just can't pull the lever for this group. So the next time someone, anyone, asks me, "Don't you want to see a black guy elected president?" I'll say sure I do but not the guy who is running for the job right now.
McCain Now Ahead In Polls!!!
I guess at least SOME people are reading my blogs . . .
Can't wait until after the debates, they'll do Obama in for good!
McCain Moves Ahead of Obama in Poll
By DAVID PAUL KUHN, Politico. com
(Sept. 7) - John McCain has overtaken Barack Obama in the Gallup daily tracking poll and has his highest level of support in that poll since early May.
Obama peaked at a 5-point convention bounce in polling published last Tuesday. He was ahead 49 percent to 43 percent in the Gallup poll conducted before the Republican convention. He then soared to 50 percent for the first time of the election, by Gallup’s measure, while McCain fell to 42 percent.
McCain’s 5-point to 6-point bounce so far, like Obama’s, remains at par with historical expectations. In the 22 major-party conventions since 1964, the nominee walked away with, on average in most years, a 5-point to 6-point uptick in Gallup’s polls. The presidential polling will likely remain in flux until the middle of next week.
Today's Gallup report continues to include some polling conducted prior to McCain's acceptance speech. Tomorrow's report will be the first to include interviews solely conducted following the close of the GOP convention.
Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll also reported today that when "leaners” are included, Obama and McCain are now tied at 48 percent. That means that, by Rasmussen’s measure, Obama’s 6-point bounce has been erased. CBS News polling had shown the same outcome midway through the GOP convention.
McCain’s resurgence in the polls comes as Nielsen Media Research reported that the Republican convention earned more television viewers than the Democratic convention. Republicans earned an average audience of 34.5 million, while Democrats earned an average viewership of 30.2 million.
Can't wait until after the debates, they'll do Obama in for good!
McCain Moves Ahead of Obama in Poll
By DAVID PAUL KUHN, Politico. com
(Sept. 7) - John McCain has overtaken Barack Obama in the Gallup daily tracking poll and has his highest level of support in that poll since early May.
McCain leads Obama 48 percent to 45 percent among registered voters, by Gallup’s measure. McCain has so far earned the same convention bounce as Obama, though at a more rapid pace.
Obama peaked at a 5-point convention bounce in polling published last Tuesday. He was ahead 49 percent to 43 percent in the Gallup poll conducted before the Republican convention. He then soared to 50 percent for the first time of the election, by Gallup’s measure, while McCain fell to 42 percent.
McCain’s 5-point to 6-point bounce so far, like Obama’s, remains at par with historical expectations. In the 22 major-party conventions since 1964, the nominee walked away with, on average in most years, a 5-point to 6-point uptick in Gallup’s polls. The presidential polling will likely remain in flux until the middle of next week.
Today's Gallup report continues to include some polling conducted prior to McCain's acceptance speech. Tomorrow's report will be the first to include interviews solely conducted following the close of the GOP convention.
Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll also reported today that when "leaners” are included, Obama and McCain are now tied at 48 percent. That means that, by Rasmussen’s measure, Obama’s 6-point bounce has been erased. CBS News polling had shown the same outcome midway through the GOP convention.
McCain’s resurgence in the polls comes as Nielsen Media Research reported that the Republican convention earned more television viewers than the Democratic convention. Republicans earned an average audience of 34.5 million, while Democrats earned an average viewership of 30.2 million.
Obama, McCain and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin all earned a similar and record audience for their convention speeches, each nearing about 40 million viewers.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
If Obama Had a Buddy List . . .
Here are some of the names you'd find on it.
Before you even hit the reply button, Google these names to find out more about some some of the closest friends and associates of the man who proclaims he is fit to lead our nation. I assure you this has nothing to do with partisanship, as I have never been a Republican for one day of my life, and because I'm sure that even at least 95% of Obama's fellow Democrats would not want anything to do with any of these people.
1.) William Ayers
2.) Bernadine Dohrn
3.) Raila Odinga
4.) Donald Young
5.) Larry Sinclair
6.) Tony Rezko
7.) Nadhmi Auchi
8.) Jeremiah Wright (one hundred bucks says Obama heads right back to Rev. Wright's congregation once he loses the election or is DQ'ed before election day due to the citizenship issue)
9.) Louis Farrakhan (aka Hitler with negro skin)
10.) Edward Said
11.) Rashid Khalidi
12.) Rev Pfleger
*After Obama selects Ward Churchill as Head of Homeland Security, don't be surprised if some of these folks get positions in his Cabinet as well. The commonsense way we can avoid all of this is simply by not electing Barack Obama to the White House in the first place.
Before you even hit the reply button, Google these names to find out more about some some of the closest friends and associates of the man who proclaims he is fit to lead our nation. I assure you this has nothing to do with partisanship, as I have never been a Republican for one day of my life, and because I'm sure that even at least 95% of Obama's fellow Democrats would not want anything to do with any of these people.
1.) William Ayers
2.) Bernadine Dohrn
3.) Raila Odinga
4.) Donald Young
5.) Larry Sinclair
6.) Tony Rezko
7.) Nadhmi Auchi
8.) Jeremiah Wright (one hundred bucks says Obama heads right back to Rev. Wright's congregation once he loses the election or is DQ'ed before election day due to the citizenship issue)
9.) Louis Farrakhan (aka Hitler with negro skin)
10.) Edward Said
11.) Rashid Khalidi
12.) Rev Pfleger
*After Obama selects Ward Churchill as Head of Homeland Security, don't be surprised if some of these folks get positions in his Cabinet as well. The commonsense way we can avoid all of this is simply by not electing Barack Obama to the White House in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)